Check Point Cloud Firewall with Threat Prevention and SandBlast
Centralized cloud policies have improved visibility and simplified network troubleshooting
What is our primary use case?
My main use case for Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is securing cloud workloads by controlling and inspecting network traffic between application servers and the internet. Day-to-day, I use it to enforce access rules between production servers and external services while monitoring and blocking suspicious traffic.
The process for enforcing access rules or monitoring traffic with Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) mainly relies on centralized security policy management to define and update access rules, followed by traffic logs and monitoring to verify that traffic is being allowed or blocked. For troubleshooting, I typically review the logs to identify the source, destination, port, and the action before adjusting the policy if required.
Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) gives consistent security controls across our cloud environment rather than managing firewall rules separately on individual workloads. It is also useful during troubleshooting because the centralized logging makes it easier to understand and trace network traffic.
Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is deployed in our organization primarily in a public cloud environment, protecting workloads and controlling traffic between cloud resources and external networks. It is integrated into our cloud network architecture rather than being deployed as a traditional on-premises firewall.
We primarily use AWS for our public cloud environment and deployment of Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security). It secures our cloud workloads and controls traffic between different network segments and external services.
We utilize Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) alongside Check Point Security Management and threat prevention capabilities. The integration gives us a centralized view of policies and security events, while Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) applies those controls to our cloud workloads and network traffic.
How has it helped my organization?
Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) has positively impacted my organization by mainly improving security consistency and visibility across our cloud environments. We have also reduced the time spent troubleshooting network access issues because the centralized policies and logs make it easier to identify and resolve blocked or unexpected traffic.
I estimate we save around 20 to 30 percent of the time on network troubleshooting since we started using Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security), mainly because the centralized logs make it quicker to identify blocked traffic and policy issues. We have also seen faster policy changes and less manual effort when managing security rules across environments.
Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) provides us with unified security management across hybrid clouds and on-premises environments where applicable. It helps our security team apply consistent policies and review events from a common management layer, which reduces duplicated administration and makes troubleshooting easier.
Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) has meaningfully reduced our cloud security risk mainly through centralized policies, traffic inspection, and threat prevention controls. I cannot put an exact percentage on risk reduction, but we have improved visibility and reduced the chance of inconsistent or overly permissive network access.
Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) has increased our confidence in secure cloud deployments because we can apply consistent security policies and threat prevention controls as workloads move into the cloud. Having centralized visibility also makes it easier to validate that traffic is properly controlled before and after a migration.
What is most valuable?
The best features Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) offers in my experience are centralized policy management, detailed traffic logging, and built-in threat prevention. I also appreciate having visibility into cloud traffic in one place, which makes troubleshooting access issues and investigating suspicious connections much easier.
Out of the features of Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security), I find myself using centralized policy management the most because most of our day-to-day work involves creating, reviewing, and updating access rules. It stands out because changes can be managed consistently across multiple cloud environments instead of handling each firewall separately.
One feature of Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) that I think people may overlook is the quality of the traffic visibility and logging. It is very useful when troubleshooting connectivity issues because I can quickly see which traffic was allowed or blocked and use that information to fine-tune the security policy.
What needs improvement?
The main improvement area for me regarding Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is ease of configuration and day-to-day administration. Some policies and cloud-specific settings can take time to understand, and troubleshooting occasionally requires going through multiple screens or logs. A more streamlined UI and simpler workflows would help.
I would appreciate simpler policy troubleshooting and better visibility of rule dependencies in Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security). It would be helpful to have a clear explanation of why the traffic was blocked and what policy or configuration caused it, especially in larger cloud environments.
I would appreciate better automation around policy recommendations and cleanup of unused rules with clear explanations for each recommendation in Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security). It would also be useful to have simpler dashboards for quickly understanding the overall security posture across multiple cloud environments.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) for a little over a year, mainly for securing cloud workloads and controlling inbound and outbound traffic. Over that time, I have also worked with its centralized policy management and threat prevention capabilities.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) has been stable in production. We have been using it for over a year without major stability issues, and the day-to-day policy management and traffic inspection have been reliable.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
We have found Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) scales well as the cloud environment grows, especially when adding more workloads and traffic. The centralized management makes it easier to maintain consistent policies, although larger environments require some additional planning around configuration and sizing.
How are customer service and support?
The customer support for Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) has been generally good in my experience. For issues that required deeper troubleshooting, the support team was responsive and helped us work through configuration and policy-related problems.
I would rate the customer support for Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) around eight out of ten. They have generally been responsive and helpful, especially for configuration and troubleshooting issues.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
Before Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security), we mainly relied on the native AWS security controls. We moved to Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) because we wanted more centralized policy management, consistent security controls, and better visibility across our cloud environment.
What was our ROI?
We have seen a return on investment with Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) mainly through time savings and reduced manual troubleshooting effort rather than direct headcount reduction. Based on our experience, we have saved roughly 20 to 30 percent of the time spent on network troubleshooting and policy administration, which adds up significantly over the year.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
The pricing for Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is reasonable for the level of security and centralized management, but licensing can be a bit complex depending on the cloud deployment and required features. Our initial setup required some planning, especially around sizing and licensing, but after that, the ongoing management was fairly straightforward.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
I have evaluated alternatives such as native AWS security controls. Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is fairly powerful and flexible, but I found the initial setup and policy configuration somewhat more complex than some alternatives, especially for teams new to Check Point.
Before choosing Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security), we evaluated native AWS controls, and we compared them mainly on centralized management, policy control, traffic visibility, threat prevention, and how well they would fit into our existing cloud environment.
What other advice do I have?
Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) provides strong security, centralized policy management, and good visibility while there is still room to improve the overall administration experience and simplify troubleshooting. I would rate Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) eight out of ten because the security capabilities and centralized management work well for our use case. What holds it back is mainly the learning curve and administration complexity. Some configurations and troubleshooting workflows could be more intuitive.
Regarding Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security)'s AI capabilities, I would say that its governance and security are reasonably well-governed, with the main strength being existing security controls and centralized visibility. That said, I would still appreciate more transparency around how AI-driven decisions are made and more granular controls for governing those capabilities.
Regarding Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security)'s AI capabilities, the accuracy and reliability of output I have used have generally been consistent and useful for security monitoring and analysis, but I do not rely on them blindly for critical policy decisions. I usually validate AI-generated insights against the actual traffic logs and security events before taking action.
We have purchased Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) through AWS Marketplace. It made the procurement process relatively straightforward and fit well with our existing AWS billing and cloud deployment model.
I would recommend Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) for organizations that need centralized security management and strong visibility across cloud environments. I would suggest planning the initial configuration carefully and giving the team some time to learn the platform, especially the policy management side. I have assigned this review a rating of eight out of ten.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?
If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?
Cloud security has improved and supports confident migrations with integrated threat prevention
What is our primary use case?
Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is used for access control to allow or block traffic based upon the source and destination. Network segmentations and logging and monitoring are implemented to monitor connections, block traffic, and manage security policies through creating and managing firewall rules via Check Point's management platform.
Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) can send events to SIEM platforms such as Splunk for centralized monitoring and incident investigation. Threat intelligence is utilized to identify malicious IPs as a criterion for the platform. Additionally, Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) provides security solutions for cloud environments such as AWS and Azure, which deliver firewalling and threat prevention for cloud workloads.
What is most valuable?
The most valuable aspects of Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) are the VPN secure site-to-site and remote access connections along with threat prevention. Malicious traffic can be detected using security features such as IPS, anti-bot, antivirus, and URL filtering.
Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) has positively impacted confidence in secure cloud deployment and migration. The migration was completed successfully and proved to be very feasible.
What needs improvement?
After working with Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) for three years, most areas including firewall rules, network segmentation, and threat prevention are solid. However, vulnerability and patch management could be improved by providing the best version of vulnerabilities and exact track numbers, which would allow for easier detection of issues with the vulnerability numbers affected in the environment.
For how long have I used the solution?
Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) has been in use for three years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is stable for the most part and is rated as good. The stability is rated around seven to eight on a scale of one to ten.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
Scalability is rated as seven on a scale of one to ten.
How are customer service and support?
Technical support for Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is rated an eight on a scale of one to ten.
How was the initial setup?
The deployment of Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is straightforward and was easy to implement.
What was our ROI?
The return on investment observed with Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is approximately fifty percent.
What other advice do I have?
Many companies are opting for Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) as it is cost-effective and integrated with the cloud at affordable prices according to each company's environment. The licenses and overall offerings are favorable, making it a preferable choice.
Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is definitely recommended because it includes threat detection, the latest technologies integrated with the cloud, and is affordable according to most companies' requirements. The number of users using Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is approximately ten thousand users. The overall review rating for this product is eight on a scale of one to ten.
Centralized cloud security has streamlined multi-account protection but still needs better dashboards
What is our primary use case?
I have been using Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) for the past one and a half years.
My focus is on cloud-related aspects like AWS cloud and Azure cloud. The primary purpose that we use Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is for the AWS account environment, securing our AWS accounts and environments.
We manage approximately 500-plus AWS accounts, handling all of our internal customers' AWS accounts. Most of the customers expose their applications using the internet-facing load balancers and expose some APIs to external web vendors or something similar. Our AWS environment is primarily made of EKS clusters, load balancers, transit gateways, and we have direct connect associations with our on-premises infrastructure. We have a lot of ECS and EC2 services. To manage all of them, when you build applications, you primarily expose them to the outside world or internet users across the globe. To protect all of this infrastructure, our applications, and our data running behind a VPC, we deployed Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) to monitor all our inbound traffic, ingress and egress traffic, and to potentially have some kind of threat intelligence in place.
We use it only for cloud, so I can recommend it only for cloud. I am not aware of the on-premises capabilities, but the name says CloudGuard Network Security, so I have focused my discussion on AWS.
What is most valuable?
From our personal usage, the most valuable feature I would say is the centralized policy management. We have organization accounts or root accounts in AWS through Landing Zones. In the case of Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) as well, we have centralized policy management. As I highlighted, we have closely 500 AWS accounts. If we have to configure them independently or individually, that becomes a complex, mammoth, and very tedious task, even to update something. With centralized policy management, we can apply consistent firewall and threat prevention rules across AWS environments without managing security for each VPC. I would say you configure something there, and it is applicable for all our AWS environments. The single view of all policies across all AWS accounts, I would consider it as the most beneficial feature. We have other options as well, such as integration with other AWS network services. Apart from that, the centralized monitoring and logging is very valuable. If we want to see which customers are having some issues or check the DDoS attacks, it will be easy for us to keep an eye on the monitoring and then evaluate the logs. There might be genuine cases of failures as well, which we are supposed to address. We have both the monitoring and logging capabilities.
What needs improvement?
The initial setup was primarily configured by our cybersecurity team, but as we progress using it based on our customer needs or as we progress and mature in terms of exposing our applications, we request ongoing amendments or changes to the security policies, including allowing a certain IP address or configuring the firewall rules that are potentially required for our applications. This is an ongoing process of how it is set up with base policies and how we upgrade it according to our customer needs.
For most of the software available out there, the initial complexity is to configure and use it, particularly in terms of large AWS accounts. We have multiple VPCs, transit gateways, and direct connect associations with on-premises infrastructure. What I would think is that if you have something like a readymade agent or some sort of automation that makes the deployment automation easier, that would be beneficial. We now see each and every single day tens and twenties of new products emerging, but I would still stick to my point that the initial configuration is somewhat difficult. This can be improved. Another point is that the dashboards are pretty much standard. Since I am from an AWS background, I will talk from an AWS perspective. If we have specific AWS-related dashboards or AWS service-related dashboards, for example, if we want to see who is accessing our EKS cluster, I would like to simply see what are all my metrics or dashboards. For example, we have something like Grafana dashboards. If you see, there are some prefabricated dashboards there for node level, EKS level, cluster level, DB level, and network level. If we have certain use-case-specific dashboards, that would really be helpful. From a policy configuration, deployment, and synchronization perspective, that would eventually take time. I would not specifically call it an improvement or to speed it up, but it is okay to manage. Then there are cost factors. Perhaps some sort of discounts for long-running customers, or if a customer is managing some 200 accounts, a discount would help.
Documentation can be considered as an area for improvement. Use case-specific dashboards, if it is possible, would also be beneficial. Providing customer insights onto the ongoing focus areas would be helpful. Dashboards can be improved, and documentation can be made easier, or use case-specific features can be introduced. Cost visibility, showing how much we are spending and how much we saved, and recommendations on new threats to customers to consider in the next iteration, would all be valuable additions. All these things are currently a bit lacking in the tool.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
In terms of scalability, it has a capability to handle as many AWS accounts as possible. Since it is a centralized system, it does not have any restrictions on how many consumers would be onboarded onto it. I do not think scalability is a problem or an issue for Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security).
How are customer service and support?
I have not been involved directly in the customer support activities, but from my cybersecurity team, that support was top-notch.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
We previously relied on the standard AWS cloud-native services such as WAF, NACL, and security groups.
The licensing and pricing are beyond my responsibilities, as the cybersecurity team handles configuration at the top layer. They take care of the licensing, and pricing is purely from an organization decision. I do not have a say on that.
How was the initial setup?
The configuration was easy, time-saving, and cost-saving, resulting in customer satisfaction, time to market improvements, and we have confidence in the solution. We pretty much focus on the custom requirements rather than standard requirements of all the accounts.
What was our ROI?
The return on investment is certainly positive. The time to market is very fast compared to the standard process that we used to do. The fewer employees needed category shows that we technically are now focusing only on the customer-specific rules rather than on the standard rules. Whenever you build an account, those configurations come in-built from the Landing Zone configurations. We are pretty much sure that our environment is secured from day one.
I cannot quantify it, but I would say the centralized system has really helped us achieve things a bit faster.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
There is something like a SmartConsole. We do not have the full permissions on the SmartConsole interface, but we got to know that there is a SmartConsole interface that provides very good visibility and simplifies the ongoing security management. We have two to three people that have access to that SmartConsole, and we can see whatever ongoing security changes are made in terms of good visibility onto where could be our next focus areas.
What other advice do I have?
Since I am not the one who configured it end-to-end, and since my expertise is not in cybersecurity, I would rate the solution a seven.
Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) saves a lot of time, effort, and cost. Rather than managing each individual account, having the centralized deployment across all accounts really makes our life easier. If you are currently handling 500 accounts or something similar, you cannot have a single entity that manages everything, which we did not have initially. But with Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security), we have that option in place. It potentially improves visibility, reduces cost, reduces effort, reduces time, and certainly increases the time to market or improves the customer experience.
My deployment is in AWS.
It is not a direct use of the AI features from Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security). But from my experience, I would rate it a seven, considering the feedback I have received from my cybersecurity team.
We are using cloud-native products like AWS WAF. We have NACLs, security groups, and AWS WAF is there. All of them are internal services. If you want to rely on that, you end up configuring all such rules or configurations across all the accounts. But when you compare this with Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security), it provides a significantly much better centralized policy management, good visibility onto the policies, and advanced threat prevention capabilities. From an administrative perspective, that would be beyond my expertise, but closely working with the cybersecurity architects, we are convinced that Check Point Cloud Firewall has brought in a lot of value-add, rather than purely relying on the cloud-native AWS services for our day-to-day policy management.
My overall rating for this solution is seven out of ten.
Centralized management has reduced policy time and provides reliable multitenant protection
What is our primary use case?
What I appreciate is that centralized management is obtained from SmartConsole with MDS, which seems very positive to me, as that is the strongest point. With that, you can have threat prevention with the blades, IPS, Anti-Bot, and Anti-Virus. I think it is very well integrated, and also for ClusterXL for high availability, it works very well; it is very reliable.
The primary impact we have had is the ability to manage security policies in a centralized manner for multiple customers from a single platform, because this significantly reduces operational time when performing, for example, rule changes or policy updates. What is more important is the availability from ClusterXL, which allows you to have production environments without service interruptions—that is, business continuity. Additionally, the threat prevention capabilities, and what I like most is that they have added a robust protection layer without the need for third-party solutions; everything is very well contained there. I estimate a reduction of between 30% and 40% in management time compared to solutions without multi-domain centralized management.
What is most valuable?
I use it in multitenant environments with an MDS architecture, the Multi-Domain Management, to manage security policies in a centralized manner for different organizations at the same time.
As I mentioned in the previous section, what I think are the best features it has is centralized management from SmartConsole with MDS. I think that is the strongest point it has, because you can have threat prevention with the blades, as I mentioned, IPS, Anti-Bot, and Anti-Virus, which are very well integrated. The ClusterXL function for high availability works very well. As I said, it is very reliable, very intuitive, and I think it is a very good tool.
What seems very good to me, as I mentioned, is the integration it has for threat prevention with the IPS, Anti-Bot, and Anti-Virus blades. That seems to be its best integration. It is very intuitive—significantly, even if you come from other firewalls, this is very intuitive; you can manage it without any problem. You do not have to learn absolutely everything from scratch. I think this part is very well integrated.
What needs improvement?
What I would like, what I think they should improve a little is the management of objects at large scale. When you work with multiple domains, there are thousands of network objects. Detecting duplicates and consistency across domains is a very manual process that should be more automated. Another thing: the SmartConsole interface is very powerful and very good, but the learning curve, compared to other solutions in the market from other manufacturers, could be modernized. I think it does not necessarily have to be done from a client application; it could be done via web, because via web I know that not all the options you have in SmartConsole are available. So it would be good if it could also be done from the web and all the options were available. Another thing that I would really like is more automation with Ansible or Terraform. I know it has improved in recent versions, but I think it is still not mature enough. Compared to other manufacturers that do have a bit more in terms of automation capabilities in integration flows with Ansible or Terraform, Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) could improve. Another thing that could be improved a little would be the TAC response time, because when there are very complex cases, I think there should be more speed initially, more ownership of those urgent cases, and not leave the customer waiting. This has happened to me: when I have cases open with Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) TAC, sometimes they do not respond and I have to keep insisting, and I think that part should improve. I do not know if it depends on who takes the ticket or on the severity of the ticket, but sometimes I have had to insist a lot, and that would be the only problem. Once they attend to me and become involved in the case, the responses they give are very professional and really help directly resolve the problems when there is a bug or troubleshooting to do.
As I said, I would like to see a specific improvement in SmartConsole. I think if they improved it—how to say it—gave it a facelift so you could access all the options directly from a browser, that would be great, because sometimes, for one reason or another, you cannot download SmartConsole or, for some reason, the SmartConsole client does not start correctly, and you could do it directly from the browser. I think that would be a good option to improve. Another thing would be that in multidomain environments, I would like a global search function for objects and rules. That is, you could enter and search across all domains at once, because right now you have to go domain by domain, and in environments with many customers, you spend quite a bit of time; you have to exit one domain and enter another. So those would be the improvements I would like to see.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been working for approximately fifteen years since I began in the world of networking and cybersecurity.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
I think it is a stable platform, and that is precisely one of Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security)'s strengths. What I have seen is that when there is a bug that may limit functionality or a bug that affects Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) directly, I see it directly from the Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) interface—from SmartConsole or from Gaia—when you log in, it automatically shows you what bug appears and what the solution is. I think that is a great feature: the firewall itself, Gaia itself, tells you: "Look, there is this error, this problem; verify if your device is affected; if so, here is the solution." So I think it is very stable in that respect.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
I think scalability is one of its strong points, especially in enterprise environments with growth. The horizontal scalability of the MDS architecture allows you to add new management domains and new gateways without impacting existing environments. In terms of vertical scalability, physical appliances and virtual machines allow you to increase processing resources. If traffic or processing needs increase, you can scale up. In Azure environments, we have adjusted instance sizes without service interruption. Where I do think there are some scalability limitations is in the management of objects and rules. When the system grows a lot, I see that policy compilation does get stuck; it feels there is a bottleneck. That scalability in the management of objects and rules is a negative point for Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) because you see a very significant operational bottleneck in very large environments with many client companies.
How are customer service and support?
I think the most critical point is the initial response time. For cases of medium severity, which are the most frequent in day-to-day operations, response times are usually very slow, sometimes many hours. You open a case one day and the next day you still do not have a response. However, once the technicians take the ticket, I think they are very professional. We have done updates, troubleshooting sessions, log reviews, rule changes and networking changes, many things. I think TAC of Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is very competent; they really know what they are doing. But in terms of agility in the response, I think the problem is in the first line of support: the person who initially manages the incidents. I think that is where the problem is and where they could improve so that tickets are immediately redirected to engineers and then a quick solution can be provided. I think the bottleneck is in the first-line support, and that could be improved, because once a specialist engineer takes the ticket, they are very professional and resolve it. They are engineers who are there every day consulting, asking questions, working with you, and they do not leave you alone with the incident or the case you opened.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
Before we used, for example, solutions from Cisco ASA and, in other cases, Fortinet, as they did not offer a multitenant management model as mature as Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) MDS. So when the number of customers and devices grew significantly, it became evident that we needed a platform or tool that would allow us to manage all these completely isolated domains from a single console without compromising the separation between customers. That is when we made this migration.
I have used other manufacturers. For example, I have a lot of experience with Palo Alto, and you could say that the main difference is the user experience when using Panorama as the centralized management console, which is like an MDS. It has a more modern and intuitive interface than SmartConsole, which, I repeat, I think should be web and should have a facelift. I have been using SmartConsole since 2018 or 2019, and it looks very similar now that we are in 2026; many years have passed. Another point is the visibility of applications with App-ID; it is very well integrated into the security policy from the beginning, while in Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) it requires more configuration to reach a similar level. For example, in multitenant environments with MDS, I feel that Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is much better than Panorama for managing many customers in an isolated manner. We also use Fortinet, whose equivalent would be FortiManager, but it also has many complexities. I think Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) surpasses Fortinet in threat prevention and the inspection engine; I think Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is much better than Fortinet. With Cisco Firewalls, with the FMC, Cisco has many shortcomings; I do not like Cisco much. I do not think the firewalls and the FMC are Cisco's strength. You need a very high learning curve to manage an FMC or Cisco Firepower Firewalls because within Firepower there are several layers of firewall—FTD and other derivatives of that—so Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is very intuitive compared to Cisco. In conclusion, we could say that Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is not easy to use, nor is it economical, but it is very robust and very mature in complex enterprise environments.
How was the initial setup?
This could be when migrations are carried out.
For several customers, but I will mention one: when a migration to a centralized architecture with MDS was performed. The customer asked us to unify the management of multiple gateways distributed geographically, because before, each policy change required manual intervention on each individual device; instead, with Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) and centralized management, changes propagate simultaneously to absolutely all gateways—that is, all the firewalls that are distributed geographically across several cities from a single console. This drastically reduces time; we went from using hours to minutes, and we also eliminated errors of inconsistency between devices. It is one thing to create several rules and then have to replicate them on multiple firewalls, or create objects and have to replicate them, but now with this, what you do is create a single rule, a single object, a single network and propagate it to the rest of the firewalls. This way you maintain, you could say, a single object, a single rule that is the same for everyone. This eliminates human errors such as a missing IP, a different rule name, misconfigured IP ranges, or ports, those things.
What about the implementation team?
We are not partners or resellers at this moment; we simply have some equipment, some customers who use these tools.
What was our ROI?
Based on the complexity and growth of users and the geographic distribution of offices—and ultimately we opted for Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security). I think there is a long-term return that would be very beneficial for a company. I also think they should take into account the issue of updates. If they are already going with Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security), they must be very careful when testing Jumbo Hotfixes and upgrades by doing it first in a preproduction environment, thoroughly reading the notes for each version, and verifying that the bugs that exist between one version and another are fixed in the new update. If necessary, consult directly with TAC of Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security); they have helped me a lot when I have had doubts about version upgrades. TAC is very friendly and answers all these questions without problems, and I think that is a very good option. As for licenses, hardware, and training, you have to do a prior analysis so that the engineers who are going to be in charge of the licenses and the solution to be acquired fully understand what is needed and what is going to be deployed.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
As for costs, as I mentioned, it is a bit mixed, because we have to be honest. For licenses, Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) has a blade-based model, which seems flexible in theory, but in practice can become expensive when you need to activate multiple security features. Each additional blade—IPS, Anti-Bot, Anti-Virus, URL Filtering, and Application Control—increases the cost. You buy a package of licenses of a certain level, but then you realize you need additional capabilities and the cost scales. As for the cost of implementation, it is higher than with other manufacturers; you also need very detailed planning, and I think that when it is multidomain, it is a product that you cannot deploy in a few days. You need planning months in advance. However, I can say that once it is implemented, it works wonderfully. Before reaching that point where everything works perfectly, you clearly have to plan months in advance so that nothing is left out during the migration. It is not the most economical solution in the market, but for complex enterprise environments I think the investment is justified because it is very robust and has been in the market for many years.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
We always looked at several options. We evaluated Palo Alto with Panorama first. The second option was FortiManager from Fortinet, and we also looked at Cisco Firewalls with its manager, which is the FMC. In the end, we put everything on the scale—what best covered our needs based on the complexity and growth of users and the geographic distribution of offices—and ultimately we opted for Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security).
What other advice do I have?
I think if they are considering investing in Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security), they should first look at the initial design of the architecture they are going to use or that they are going to need. Based on that, they should go directly with Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security), because I think it is a product where initial architectural decisions have a very large impact on long-term operability. If you build a solid foundation with the architecture you need, I think Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is a very good solution and, in the long term, will be a better ally than other manufacturers. However, this is achieved by working hand in hand with Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) engineers, and if it is implemented very well from the beginning, the investment is very good. I think there is a long-term return that would be very beneficial for a company. I would rate this review a 9 out of 10.
Centralized cloud security has improved perimeter protection and streamlined traffic monitoring
What is our primary use case?
Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) has been acting as a perimeter device for our architecture, and it has been helping us to secure and have centralized management and visibility of the cloud network security. As a security analyst, we have been forwarding those logs with the SIEM solutions where we are monitoring network traffic flows for any abnormalities, applications and services, and for potential security breaches.
We have been forwarding those logs over to the SIEM, and we have deployed this firewall in our environment to secure the perimeter by introducing policies. We have utilized the features to have the policies in place for communication with the destinations, to identify the source and destination ports and protocols, and the allowed and blocked connections to the firewalls. These were our basic use cases.
We also use it for network traffic inspections, firewall policy enforcement, application and service controls, and the centralized policy management tool.
What is most valuable?
Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) has centralized policy management, and the logging and monitoring is the extensive solution that we have really appreciated, as it supports multiple SIEM solutions to have logging and monitoring in place from a security perspective.
The product has native integration support, and all of them are integrated with each other. It has been quite simple for us as we have the entire Check Point suite. It has been quite helpful, and it has been easy to integrate with each other.
We have been utilizing the overall Check Point suites, including the email collaborations, Harmony, and Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security). This includes the Cloud Network Security, AppSec, the WAF firewalls, and Cloud Native Security.
What needs improvement?
The tool has been quite easy to handle. However, when we were new in this phase, whenever an implementation was going on, there were some areas that we identified with the overall complexity of managing a cloud environment, particularly when we dealt with multiple cloud accounts and networks. Making those workflows more streamlined is an area that can be improved.
For how long have I used the solution?
The implementation took around three months, as our environment was quite complex.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
We are not having any downtime as of now. We have been getting notifications from the team regarding maintenance windows. There has been no downtime observed as of now, and with no glitches or bugs.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
As of now, Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) has been scalable. We have been onboarding our environment and deploying the policies. We have not observed any lagginess or slowness on the portal or in the central management.
The tool has been quite scalable. We have been deploying the policies, but we have not observed any issues with the scalability.
How are customer service and support?
Initially, technical support was there to understand our architecture and to deploy them. They have been quite helpful in the initial phases.
How was the initial setup?
The initial setup was quite easy. We have the support team with us to have support, and they have all these SOPs and help documents and the steps on how to perform the tasks. How to perform the onboarding of these firewalls was all in one portal, which was documented with the SOPs. This helped us in a very positive manner.
What other advice do I have?
For new users, we would recommend starting with a clear understanding of the cloud network architecture first: how the traffic flows, how the security policies should be made before major configuration changes, and to start monitoring with logging first and understanding how the policy behaves. These are the primary checks that we would advise new users. Our overall score is eight out of ten.
Cloud security has supported auto-scaling protection for internet-facing workloads on AWS
What is our primary use case?
I am still using Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security), and using it means I am working on Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security). I am working with Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security). Today, I work with Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) as a service provider and partner. Clients are using Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security), and the major purpose is that the application is running on the cloud, so Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is working as a perimeter for the traffic which is coming from the internet.
What is most valuable?
The biggest advantage of Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is that, specifically on AWS cloud, Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) deployment happens in the auto-scaling mechanism, so if a high amount of traffic hits the application, and if Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) CPU is getting increased or it is getting about 80 or 60%, a new Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) gateway will automatically be deployed and it will be functional within 10 minutes. This auto-scaling feature is very helpful and great.
Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) ensures confidence for cloud deployments and migrations, and I am happy. Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is helpful for cloud deployments and migrations, and specifically on cloud, I can say the gateways deployed with the auto-scaling mechanism will be a great feature.
What needs improvement?
The area of improvement is minimal and not especially a super big problem currently. I would like to see some additional features added to the product, such as integrating Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) with some AI tools.
The purpose of AI integration could be helpful for security as it will analyze the logs, analyze the patterns, and based on that, suggest the security parameters or the IPS signatures and the policies, and then such configuration.
For how long have I used the solution?
I started using Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) two years ago.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
I give Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) a nine for stability.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
I can give Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) a nine for scalability.
How are customer service and support?
I can give Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) nine points for support and technical service.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
I have worked with other firewalls, specifically on Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security), and I can say that as compared to FortiGate and Palo Alto, I found Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) as a market leader in the security, as their IPS signature and the firewall provide enhancements with the IPS signature and the traffic.
How was the initial setup?
I give Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) a nine for installation and firewall deployment.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
I cannot take a decision on whether Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is an expensive or quite affordable tool as I am a technical engineer, and the pricing is taken care of by the sales team only and the management.
What other advice do I have?
I am not using other products such as Harmony or CloudGuard, only Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) with management and gateway.
I cannot say why I chose Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) because I am working as a professional engineer, and that OEM partnership and engagement decision is taken by the management only. The engineers deploy and work on Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security).
Currently, I do not have any examples where Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) helps to reduce organizational risk, but it does help to reduce the risk.
I give a final rating for Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) a nine.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?
If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?
Cloud security has protected hybrid infrastructures and supports continuous business operations
What is our primary use case?
We use both on-premises and cloud solutions and work with both. Regarding the use cases for Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security), customers want to protect their infrastructure, and it was particularly valuable when part of the infrastructure is on-premises and another part is on the cloud. Government requirements sometimes mandate only on-premises infrastructure when these requirements are not present, necessitating this solution. Government customers often prefer the on-premises solution, as cloud options are not always suitable.
How has it helped my organization?
As a partner, the biggest advantage of the tool is simpler and easier implementation. I believe it is more reliable, particularly regarding electricity and non-stop business processes in companies because the major equipment is not in Ukraine territory. Some customers ask about cloud solutions because they seek safer options during dangerous situations.
Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) helps reduce organizational risk because it provides correct connections to cloud infrastructure and acts as a cloud access security broker. This function is critical in the first year of using this solution, allowing us to monitor our cloud infrastructure.
What is most valuable?
Check Point is the leader in gateways, and this is supported by Gartner, Forrester, and other review platforms. My customers with real cases also speak about this.
The major reason for choosing Check Point is that we have qualified engineers for this product, which influences my decision towards this solution. If you speak about small and medium-sized businesses, middle market, and the enterprise level, we provide appropriate solutions for these customers, and we use this vendor's solution. For smaller businesses, we also use other solutions, which are quieter.
All Check Point products are integrated with each other. We use Harmony, we use solutions from gateways, Harmony, Quantum Group solutions, web application firewall, and SmartCM, which is a tool for log analysis and visibility. We use more than fifty percent of the portfolio.
What needs improvement?
Regarding negative aspects about Check Point, previous issues included productivity metrics. Check Point solutions often do not provide as much productivity for machines' CPUs, and the implementation requires qualified engineers. It is not an easy solution to implement, and the price is above average—at least three points regarding these factors.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been working with Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) for two years. Overall in the business, my experience in cybersecurity products stretches to five years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
We encounter some obstacles in our projects, but in general, I am satisfied with the stability and reliability.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
In terms of scalability within the product, it is not easy to expand in terms of price or market expenses.
How are customer service and support?
I am very happy with the customer service from Check Point. We have a private engineer who is closely connected to the vendor and engaged in ongoing learning programs and accreditation. For support, I would rate it around seven to eight.
What was our ROI?
Despite the price being on the higher side, the value for investments is substantial. It meets the requirements of suppliers or other business parts for security and protection against cyber risks, functioning like insurance.
What other advice do I have?
I know Trend Micro and Palo Alto products, but I am not too focused on them, and I think approximately ten to fifteen percent resemble Check Point, for example. That is why I cannot be so objective about this.
We are a partner with Check Point, and we have status, although unfortunately I cannot remember what kind of partnership we have.
Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) deployment model is primarily cloud-based. We use different cloud providers, primarily private clouds and seldom AWS or Azure.
I am absolutely happy with how secure my cloud deployments are, as the government requirements are being met. It requires qualified engineers for selling at a high level and some competitive engineering expertise.
My general rating of the product is around eight to nine.
Cloud security has strengthened hybrid deployments and supports smooth policy-driven operations
What is our primary use case?
I work for Check Point as a distributor here in Sri Lanka, and I serve as the technical architect.
We provide the entire Check Point stack, including Check Point firewalls, Check Point Email Security, and Check Point ERM. We also offer Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security), though it has limited adoption in the Sri Lankan market with only a few customers. We have one customer for Check Point WAF.
We operate as a value-added distributor, providing sales support along with implementation assistance, POCs, solution architecting, and comprehensive support services.
In the Sri Lankan market, we recommend Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) to manufacturing industries and conglomerates who are on their cloud journey. However, we have a substantial market for firewalls among banks, though they are not yet ready to transition to the cloud. Therefore, our primary focus is approaching the manufacturing industry and conglomerates.
What is most valuable?
I believe the VDOM functionality from the firewall side, particularly the virtual firewalls, could be improved. For multiple virtual firewalls in cloud instances, it would be beneficial to optimize this aspect and provide consistent security levels across all instances where multiple micro-segmentation networks exist in the cloud.
One area for improvement involves policy optimization at the VDOM level to enable simultaneous policy enforcement. The policy configuration is somewhat complicated compared to other vendors in the market, and simplification would be advantageous. Enhanced ecosystem integration would also be valuable.
Additionally, incorporating CSPM into Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) portfolio would improve visibility on the application side of the cloud network, not only on the network side but also on the application side. We expect these features because vendors like Palo Alto provide comprehensive cloud security. We want our customers to experience Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) as a comprehensive cloud security platform rather than simply a cloud firewall.
What needs improvement?
Currently, we have one customer using Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security), and they are satisfied. However, we need to complete an integration with a Nutanix environment for the hybrid component that the customer requested. This integration has not yet been delivered by Check Point. Once this is properly addressed, the customer will be fully satisfied with the platform.
We have not yet completed the integration and are about to begin the integration process.
For how long have I used the solution?
Overall, I have been working with Check Point for approximately five years.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
For this specific customer, the implementation of Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) was very smooth. However, regarding the VDOM component, the customer expected it to be at a more optimal level rather than being complicated regarding policy enforcement for the multiple micro-segmented environment. Other than that, everything functioned well.
How are customer service and support?
Technical support is excellent, and we have a country SE who provides support. The TAC support is also strong. The support from TAC has been consistently good, and there is nothing negative to comment on regarding that aspect.
How was the initial setup?
The setup process is straightforward and easy.
What other advice do I have?
Competition with Fortinet in the Sri Lankan market is limited, as they are considerably cheaper and claim to address customer requirements. When approaching this market, Check Point pricing is somewhat expensive. We reduced our prices to acquire that customer, but I think that if pricing could be lowered further, we could approach other sectors where price is a critical evaluation factor. Better pricing in relation to competition would provide us an advantage in promoting Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) in this market. My overall review rating for Check Point Cloud Firewall (formerly CloudGuard Network Security) is nine out of ten.